37 A.3d at 458 [A] false-light claim parallels the requirements of the actual-malice standard in First Amendment jurisprudence and our own common law.2 citing cases
- Aslan Soobzokov v. ErIc Lichtblau, 664 F. App'x 163 (3d Cir. 2016).unpublished([A] false-light claim parallels the requirements of the actual-malice standard in First Amendment jurisprudence and our own common law.)
- Gail Bierman & Beth Weier v. Scott Weier & Author Solutions, Inc., 826 N.W.2d 436 (Iowa 2013).published(noting New Jersey law expanded free speech protections beyond what is required in federal law such that the “actual-malice standard protects both media and non-media defendants who make statements involving matters of p…)
37 A.3d at 459 cited at this page2 citing cases
- Janice Lee v. TMZ Prods. Inc, 710 F. App'x 551 (3d Cir. 2017).unpublished“That an editor or reporter should have known or should have doubted [the] accuracy of an article before publishing it is insufficient to show reckless disregard for the truth.” Durando, 37 A.3d at 459 (alteration and emphases in original)…
- Dr. Raymond M. Gordon v. CBS Broad., No. 3132 EDA 2013 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 8, 2014).unpublished Durando, 37 A.3d at 459 (citations modified). - 13 - J-A25019-14 In their complaint, Appellants alleged that CBS’s report led “members of St.
209 N.J. at 253 cited at this page1 citing case
- Amratlal C. Bhagat v. Bharat A. Bhagat (068312), 84 A.3d 583 (N.J. 2014).published“Although courts construe the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party in a summary judgment motion, the ‘dear and convincing' standard in [a] defamation action adds an additional weight to the plaintiffs’ usual ‘prepon…
Other citing cases
- Verdu v. Im, No. 3:19-cv-16394 (D.N.J. Jan. 31, 2024).unpublished
ORDER
The Disciplinary Review Board having filed with the Court its decision in DRB 11-137, concluding that as a matter of final discipline pursuant to Rule 1:20—13(c), MICHAEL SCOTT KLEIN of WARRINGTON, PENNSYLVANIA, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1994, should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years based on respondent’s plea of guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 and to criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, conduct that in New Jersey violates RPC 8.4(b) (commission of a criminal act that adversely reflects on the attorney’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer) and RPC 8.4(c) (conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation), and good cause appearing;
It is ORDERED that MICHAEL SCOTT KLEIN is suspended from the practice of law for a period of three years and until the further Order of the Court, effective immediately; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent comply with Rule 1:20-20 dealing with suspended attorneys; and it is further
ORDERED that pursuant to Rule l:20-20(c), respondent’s failure to comply with the Affidavit of Compliance requirement of Rule l:20-20(b)(15) may (1) preclude the Disciplinary Review Board from considering respondent’s petition for reinstatement for a period of up to six months from the date respondent files proof of compliance; (2) be found to constitute a violation of RPC 8.1(b) and RPC 8.4(c); and (3) provide a basis for an action for contempt pursuant to Rule 1:10-2; and it is further
[*235] ORDERED that the entire record of this matter be made a permanent part of respondent’s file as an attorney at law of this State; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent reimburse the Disciplinary Oversight Committee for appropriate administrative costs and actual expenses incurred in the prosecution of this matter, as provided in Rule 1:20-17.